RISK

Trading carries substantial risk of loss. Prop evaluation fees are typically non-refundable and the majority of traders do not pass first attempts. This comparison is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Read full risk warning

HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON · 2026

FundingPips vs Aqua Funded

Side-by-side comparison of trust scores, profit splits, payout speed, and real trader reviews. Independent data — no sponsored rankings.

FundingPips
FPIP
FundingPips
✓ VERIFIEDEST. 2022
Aqua Funded
AQUA
Aqua Funded
EST. 2023
FUNDINGPIPS
METRIC
AQUA FUNDED
78/100BETTER
TRUST SCORE
59/100
0/5
RATING
BETTER4/5
80%
PROFIT SPLIT
BETTER90%
$2,000,000TIE
MAX FUNDING
TIE$2,000,000
$29
MIN COST
BETTER$1
2dBETTER
PAYOUT DAYS
7d
PASS RATE
0
REVIEW COUNT
BETTER2

FUNDINGPIPS DETAILS

STEPS
2-phase
DRAWDOWN
Fixed
MARKETS
Forex, Crypto, Indices, Metals, Energies
PLATFORMS
MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker

AQUA FUNDED DETAILS

STEPS
2-phase
DRAWDOWN
Trailing
MARKETS
Forex, Indices, Metals, Commodities, Crypto
PLATFORMS
MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker

FundingPips PROS

  • +Min challenge cost of $29 is well below the industry average of $186.7, making entry highly affordable.
  • +Max funding of $2,000,000 is more than double the industry average of $839,272.7.
  • +Days to first payout of 2 is significantly faster than the industry average of 6.5 days.
  • +Weekend holding, news trading, and EA use are all permitted, offering broad trading flexibility.

FundingPips CONS

  • Profit split of 80% is below the industry average of 84.7%, giving traders a smaller earnings share.
  • Overall drawdown of 10% exceeds the industry average of 7.9%, requiring traders to absorb larger losses.
  • No fee refund is offered, meaning traders cannot recover the challenge cost upon passing.

Aqua Funded PROS

  • +Min challenge cost of just $1 is exceptionally below the industry average of $186.7, making it highly accessible.
  • +Max funding of $2,000,000 is more than double the industry average of $839,272.7.
  • +Profit split of 90% significantly exceeds the industry average of 84.7%.
  • +Weekend holding, news trading, and EA use are all permitted, offering maximum trading flexibility.

Aqua Funded CONS

  • Overall drawdown of 10% is above the industry average of 7.9%, requiring traders to manage larger potential losses.
  • Profit target of 10% is higher than the industry average of 7.9%, making the challenge harder to pass.
  • Days to first payout of 7 is slightly above the industry average of 6.5 days.

PROPDNA VERDICT

FundingPips
Higher trust score (78/100). Faster payouts at 2d. 80% profit split.
Aqua Funded
Lower trust score (59/100). Slower payouts at 7d. 90% profit split.

RELATED LINKS

FundingPips Full Review →Aqua Funded Full Review →All Comparisons →
← COMPARE ALL FIRMS ON PROPDNA

Affiliate disclosure: PropDNA may earn a commission if you start a challenge through links on this page. Scores are calculated algorithmically from verified trader reviews — not influenced by commercial relationships.Privacy Policy